“116. It must be remembered that what is relevant is an assessment of those reactions rather than the validity of the reasons for them looked at through “English or any other eyes”
“…The returns process is vital to effective immigration control, but the success of the process is heavily reliant on the co-operation of the receiving State. Such co-operation is in many cases hard won and susceptible to being withdrawn. The subject of returns and foreign national offenders is in varying degree a sensitive subject, for many if not most States, in that it requires the receiving State to acknowledge that numbers of its nationals are in the UK illegally or have committed offences here. Large numbers of returns might also be seen to imply that conditions in the home country are poor. Other States generally regard the details of such matters as confidential between them and the UK authorities. Those requiring emergency travel documents do not hold passports, so the Home Office can only return them if the country of origin agrees to provide such a travel document. Many countries are at best ambivalent about accepting their nationals back, because they often send home remittances which help their economy, whereas they may become a burden on the receiving State if returned. This means that co-operation on documentation is variable and heavily reliant on delicate relationships with embassy staff of the other State.”
“The effective conduct of the UK’s international relations depends upon maintaining the trust and confidence of other states and international organisations. This relationship allows for the free and frank exchange of information between the UK and its partners. In turn this allows the UK to effectively protect and promote its interests abroad.”
“…it is attempts to enter the UK rather than returns which would indicate this position. The number of asylum claimants from particular States might indeed indicate poor conditions, so too might grants of asylum by nationality – and that information is already public including for Somalia and Eritrea. The numbers of returns (which includes individuals who may have resided in the UK for long periods, even decades, but now have no entitlement to remain […]) goes to the efficacy of the removal process, not to conditions in the State of nationality.”
“In all cases, caseworkers must consider on an individual basis whether removal is likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe. If removal is likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, then detention or continued detention will usually be appropriate. As a guide, and for these purposes only, removal could be said to be likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe where a travel document exists, removal directions are set or could be set in the near future, where there are no outstanding legal barriers or it is considered that legal barriers can be resolved expeditiously.”
“4. Liberty is a fundamental right of all people and can only be restricted if there is no reasonable alternative. This principle applies to all people in the UK, including foreign nationals. 5. Immigration detention cannot be used as punishment, as a deterrent or for any coercive purpose. Immigration detention cannot be used to prevent or restrict the establishment of family or private life, or to prevent or restrict an applicant from pursuing lawful action to remain in the UK. 6. When considering whether to grant bail, judges are not deciding whether continued detention is lawful. 7. It is generally accepted that detention for three months would be considered a substantial period and six months a long period. Imperative considerations of public safety may be necessary to justify detention in excess of six months. […] 28. It is for the immigration authorities to show it is more likely than not that there is no reasonable alternative to detention. In all cases involving people detained under immigration powers, the first reason for detention is to enable the immigration authorities to carry out their functions. Safeguarding is a secondary purpose of detention, and includes preventing a person absconding if released. 30. Where immigration detention is no longer justified, bail should be granted.”
“In the absence of detailed and accurate data on how many ETDs are produced each year for a specific country, BID will have to rely on statistics produced by the Home Office on detentions and removals. This method is not accurate because it relies on BID making a series of assumptions by checking the number of individuals from certain countries who have been detained under immigration powers in any given period and comparing it to the number of enforced removals during that same period.” and that “While the CRG [Countries Return Guide] may contain details of the type of travel document required by each state, the minimum requirements and timeframes for obtaining those documents, it does not currently contain any established timescales for securing an ETD for a Somali or Eritrean national with either original evidence, copy evidence or without evidence. This means that BID is unable to advise Somali or Eritrean clients whose only barrier to removal is the lack of an ETD on the time by which one could be obtained. This makes the data on how many ETDs are produced per year for the relevant state even more important to BID, as currently there is no information available in the CRG that would assist with assessing whether removal is imminent or not in this context.”